Would you vote for a bill that replaced Marriage w/ Civil Unions?

[Duchess Jack]

Well, not exactly replace them... but what if all the legal benefits applied to marriages were instead applied to civil unions and we left marriages to the churches? If marriage is between a man and woman as a religeous issue - then that kind of puts church and state in bed together. Folk can still get married but they won't recieve the benefits of the union unless they get a civil union. Would you vote for something like this?

[Big Country]

It's all labelling. So, meh, but I would vote for it as I don't mind of gay/lebian couples get the same legal benefits as straight couples.

[H8tank]

Leave it as a state issue, and a state does not have to recognize another states marriage if they so choose.

[wiegie]

I'd be perfectly happy to divorce marriages from state sanction.

 

Let the state give civil unions and let churches do marriages.

[jetsfan]

Leave it as a state issue, and a state does not have to recognize another states marriage if they so choose.

 

+1, eliminate all legal associations with marriage and be done with it.

[wiegie]

also, I checked both boxes when I voted just because I could. :oldrazz:

[Savage Beatings]

I've also heard an idea thrown out there that marriages/civil unions should not be lifelong contracts but should have an expiration date (of say 5 to 10 years) with an optional renewal for the two parties involved. Not sure what to make of that.

[Ursa Majoris]

I've also heard an idea thrown out there that marriages/civil unions should not be lifelong contracts but should have an expiration date (of say 5 to 10 years) with an optional renewal for the two parties involved. Not sure what to make of that.

That's a whole different question IMO and one I would (knee jerk) oppose.

[Perchoutofwater]

I'm all for civil unions, there is no reason gays can't be as miserable as the rest of us. I don't even care if they call them marriages, as long as no church that views homosexuality as a sin is forced to marry a gay couple. Actually I kind of like jetsfan's idea. I pretty sure if we eliminate all legal aspects of marriage I'd get a pretty good tax cut, even under Obama's plan, as my wife's income wouldn't be taxed at the higher rate, and I could gift her some investments as well. I'm liking this idea a lot.

[Pope Flick]

I've also heard an idea thrown out there that marriages/civil unions should not be lifelong contracts but should have an expiration date (of say 5 to 10 years) with an optional renewal for the two parties involved. Not sure what to make of that.

 

 

That's not a marriage, that's a hobby.

[godtomsatan]

+1, eliminate all legal associations with marriage and be done with it.

 

Nah, if I want to leave my life insurance to my gay lover H8Tank, and my sister wants to get her greedy paws on it, I need some kind of binding contract that supercedes her blood relative demands that a court can recognize.

 

That said, get rid of the taxation aspect of marriage and I'm all for it.

[Big John]

. I don't even care if they call them marriages, as long as no church that views homosexuality as a sin is forced to marry a gay couple.

Churches can now decide on who they will and will not marry, and not just on same gender as they can refuse to marry any heterosexual couple they don't deem fit for marriage. This bill would do more to pull the government out of marriage by letting the churches themselves define marriage and the state only recognize "civil unions", in which a marriage can be a form of this. Then alternative methods, such as a ceremony by a justice of the peace, would be a civil union instead of a marriage.

[Azazello1313]

I'd rather just allow gheys to marry than change/eliminate the legal definition of marriage. I think it goes without saying that a church wouldn't have to marry any couples they don't endorse. they can already do that (like the catholic church and divorcees).

[Jackass]

I've also heard an idea thrown out there that marriages/civil unions should not be lifelong contracts but should have an expiration date (of say 5 to 10 years) with an optional renewal for the two parties involved. Not sure what to make of that.

 

I used to joke about that idea, but is it really something being seriously considered? That would surprise me. My suggestion (was mostly joking) was for marriage to have to be re-newed every year like an insurance policy.

[Skilly]

Can you imagine how many divorce lawyers would be unemployed? I'm all for it!!!

[AtomicCEO]

I appreciated the option to vote for both yes and no in this poll, so I did.

[yo mama]

Both marriage and civil unions should be whatever a particular state's law defines it as. Every state already has its own definition of what constitutes "marriage," so we're already half way there. The resulting state law legal relationship should be unaffected by what the feds think. (Yes, I'm looking at you, federal Defense of Marriage Act )

 

Once the relationship is defined under state law, the Feds should be able to tax or regulate how married couples and civil union couples are treated under federal statutes. If the feds want to treat one group different than the other, fine (subject to standard notions of Equal Protection, Due Process, etc.) But they shouldn't get to determine *how* to define a "marriage" or "civil union."

Edited May 15, 2009 by yo mama

[wiegie]

also, I checked both boxes when I voted just because I could. :oldrazz:

I appreciated the option to vote for both yes and no in this poll, so I did.

I think CEO is trying to enter into a civil union with me.

Edited May 15, 2009 by wiegie

[The Holy Roller]

I think CEO is trying to enter into a civil union with me.

 

:divingboard:

[Kid Cid]

I still believe that this is a question for the States, not the Fed gov. However, each State should deal with things in exactly this manner. The religions can marry whomever they feel meet their standards and any two consenting adults may enter into a legally binding civil union.

[Big John]

I think CEO is trying to enter into a civil union with me.

They already had their spat.

[AtomicCEO]

I think CEO is trying to enter into a civil union with me.

 

I'm your private dancer. Dancer for money.

[detlef]

Just curious, but why should it be a states issue? Mind you, I understand that it already is, but why is that important? I'm all for the government, be it state or Fed to distance themselves from the word "marriage" and just stick to civil unions and also don't think, as perch, that any church should be required to recognize a union as a marriage.

 

I'd have no problem, like others have said about using the word marriage to define them all as well. After all, I'm currently in a marriage that has not been sanctioned by the church. Check that, I paid $5 and to get ordained by the Universal Life Church so I could, in turn, ordain a good friend of ours so she could officially marry us. So, The Beatles, Stones, George Burns, and others are down with the pledge my wife and I made to one another.

[Kid Cid]

The answer to your question detlef is in the Constitution itself. Article I Section 8 expressly defines what Congress can do. The 10th Amendment states that any power not expressly given to Congress shall be held by the States or by the people. I do not see any place where Congress was given the power to marry people. See below.

 

(Article I) Section 8 - Powers of Congress

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

 

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[detlef]

The answer to your question detlef is in the Constitution itself. Article I Section 8 expressly defines what Congress can do. The 10th Amendment states that any power not expressly given to Congress shall be held by the States or by the people. I do not see any place where Congress was given the power to marry people. See below.

I suppose my question is more of why marriage, of all things, should be something excluded from federal authority and preserved for the states. As I said, I understand that it is currently a state's issue, just wondering why people speak about it as if it's intrinsically important that it stay that way.

 

After all, that would imply that people think it important that some states should be able to create a separate but equal status when it comes to unions and others not. I would imagine that some would like that to be the case with other civil rights issues and yet we the people have spoken and said that it should not be up to each state individually to determine many of these things. At least I think that's the case.

 

I would think that the US and all of it's states should be on the same page when it comes to civil rights and this is a civil rights issue. Perhaps for those of us fortunate enough to have our unions seen in the most accepted light possible, it's a matter of semantics. However, that doesn't seem to be the case for those who are less fortunate.

 

Simply saying that it isn't already expressly written as a Federal deal and that everything not expressly written as federal is assumed state's authority only explains why that's the case right now, not why it should be thus going forward.

Edited May 16, 2009 by detlef